> A number of unique characteristics in the note indicate it was written by a fluent Chinese speaker. A typo in the note, “帮组” (bang zu) instead of “帮助” (bang zhu) meaning “help,” strongly indicates the note was written using a Chinese-language input system rather than being translated from a different version. More generally, the note makes use of proper grammar, punctuation, syntax, and character choice, indicating the writer was likely native or at least fluent. There is, however, at least one minor grammatical error which may be explained by autocomplete, or a copy-editing error.
No native Chinese speaker would unintentionally make such mistakes. Any decent Chinese pinyin input method would have corrected that typo mistake, not to mention handwriting methods. Also, it is highly unlikely to miss a letter when typing Chinese pinyin, unless the person have been pronouncing it wrongly and is unaware of the mistake.
> The text uses certain terms that further narrow down a geographic location. One term, “礼拜” for “week,” is more common in South China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore; although it is occasionally used in other regions of the country. The other “杀毒软件” for “anti-virus” is more common in the Chinese mainland.
No, ＂礼拜＂ is used interchangeably across China and it is one of the standard translations of days of the week. And ＂杀毒软件＂ is the default translation of antivirus in Google translate.
I am not saying that the person behind the note is not Chinese. It's just the poor analysis in this article makes me both want to laugh and cry as a native Chinese speaker. The bottom line is, I would not trust a report on Chinese linguistic analysis by three non-native Chinese speakers.
It's this lack of follow through which burns me in regard to these investigations.
> The two Chinese ransom notes differ substantially from other notes in content, format, and tone. Google Translate fails in both Chinese-English and English-Chinese tests, producing inaccurate results that suggests the Chinese text was likely not have been similarly generated by the English text.
Really? Did Flashpoint even compare English to Chinese samples from the many professional human-based translation services online or was Google Translate their sole source of testing?
> Perhaps most compelling, the Chinese note contains substantial content not present in any other version of the note, is lengthier, and differs slightly in format.
Hmm. That again suggests it may have been interpreted by a human. Although why immediately assume it's one of the authors? A human-based translation service could yield the same results...
Yeah. You are right about that. So I am not ruling out the possibility that someone who mispronounces the word was the author.
Still the odds are low, considering this is a common phrase and he/she has likely made similar mistakes before (zh -> z) and taken some corrective actions to prevent future typos.
No native Chinese speaker would unintentionally make such mistakes. Any decent Chinese pinyin input method would have corrected that typo mistake, not to mention handwriting methods. Also, it is highly unlikely to miss a letter when typing Chinese pinyin, unless the person have been pronouncing it wrongly and is unaware of the mistake.
> The text uses certain terms that further narrow down a geographic location. One term, “礼拜” for “week,” is more common in South China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore; although it is occasionally used in other regions of the country. The other “杀毒软件” for “anti-virus” is more common in the Chinese mainland.
No, ＂礼拜＂ is used interchangeably across China and it is one of the standard translations of days of the week. And ＂杀毒软件＂ is the default translation of antivirus in Google translate.
I am not saying that the person behind the note is not Chinese. It's just the poor analysis in this article makes me both want to laugh and cry as a native Chinese speaker. The bottom line is, I would not trust a report on Chinese linguistic analysis by three non-native Chinese speakers.